Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates sign-code changes for flags, residential signs and historic‑district colors
Summary
At a May 19 La Conner Planning Commission meeting, staff presented multiple draft revisions to the town sign code; commissioners focused on clarifying flag exemptions and sizes, residential sign-size limits, vehicle-sign rules, banner/content restrictions, and proposed historic‑district color standards. A number of items were deferred for further drafting and follow-up.
La Conner’s Planning Commission on May 19 considered proposed revisions to the town sign code, spending most of the meeting on questions about how the code would treat flags, residential signs, vehicle signage and sign colors in the Historic Preservation District. Staff presented three draft versions of the ordinance and asked the commission to identify places that need clearer wording.
The discussion centered on several technical but consequential issues: how to define “flag” and “noncommercial institution,” whether government or school flags should be exempt from permitting, how large exempt flags may be, and whether large flags should be counted against a property’s overall allowed sign area. Staff said the draft treats flags for governments or noncommercial institutions as exempt from certificate-of-authorization requirements if under a 48-square-foot threshold, while flags larger than 48 square feet would be “applied to the overall permitted signage of the property.” The Chair said she did not want residents to be prevented from flying an American flag, adding, "I would hate for somebody not to be able to fly an American flag." Staff summarized the draft wording: "Flags greater than 48 square feet are allowed provided that a square footage of such flag greater than 48 square feet shall be applied to the overall permitted signage of the property." (Staff member spoke during the presentation.)
Commissioners repeatedly raised constitutional and enforceability concerns, urging rules that regulate measurable characteristics (size, material, lighting) rather than message. Staff warned that language treating banners or event signage differently could constitute a content-based regulation and therefore be vulnerable to legal challenge; commissioners agreed any rule should rely on objective metrics rather than the sign’s message.
The draft also addresses residential-zone exemptions and temporary signs. Staff noted residential commemorative signs would be limited to 3 square feet in some language, while temporary signs posted on undeveloped residential property or buildings would be limited to 24 square feet, one per street frontage, and must be removed within 30 days. Commissioners questioned whether distinguishing signs by the property’s activity (for sale, lease or rental) would create an impermissible content-based rule and suggested adopting a single size standard that applies regardless of the sign’s message.
The commission discussed vehicle signage and enforcement. Staff said the town does not regulate private‑vehicle signage as such and that the town’s enforcement options are limited except in special cases (for example, if a commercial vehicle is parked in a public right-of-way longer than 72 hours). That led the group to recommend removing or clarifying provisions that attempt to regulate signs attached to private vehicles.
Members also debated design rules for the Historic Preservation District. The draft would require new signs in that district to use materials compatible with the town’s historic character and select colors from an approved palette; commissioners proposed an approach that preserves business branding while retaining historic character, with one suggestion to require at least 51% of sign color area be from the approved palette. Staff noted that an application asking for planning-commission review under a class-3 historic-design permit currently carries a commission-set fee of $875 plus a typical $175 public-notice publication cost.
No formal ordinance votes were taken. Staff said Scott (a document reviewer) had submitted comments that need clearer placement in the packet; commissioners asked staff to reformat the PDF so written comments align with the text they reference and requested that Scott be invited to the next meeting or provide clarifying notes. The commission agreed to continue the sign-code discussion at a future meeting, with banners and remaining clarifications carried forward.
The Chair closed the meeting after formal business and a motion to adjourn.
